Discussion

Abstract

Fracture of the condylar process is the most common mandibular fracture. Still, the choice of treatment is controversial. 1 Hall MB Condylar fractures: Surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1189 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar Open versus closed reduction has been thoroughly discussed by, among others, Zide and Kent. 2 Zide M Kent J Indication for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983; 41: 89 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (294) Google Scholar Different treatment philosophies has been advocated, 1 Hall MB Condylar fractures: Surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1189 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar , 2 Zide M Kent J Indication for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983; 41: 89 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (294) Google Scholar but our own guideline for treatment of condylar fractures has been, according to Hall, 1 Hall MB Condylar fractures: Surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1189 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar to evaluate every patient individually before deciding on treatment. Open and closed reduction have been considered equal, and the choice of treatment has depended on the fracture level, amount of displacement, the adequacy of the occlusion, and whether the patient desired to have maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). The expected risk of a remaining facial asymmetry after treatment attributable to dislocation of the condylar process and ramus shortening also has influenced the choice of treatment. It has seemed logical that good anatomic repositioning of the condylar process fracture prevents development of facial asymmetry.